Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
2011 Edition
CONTRIBUTORS
Sam Kito III, P.E., Facilities Engineer Alaska Department of Education and Early Development Juneau, Alaska Scott Thomas, P.E. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Anchorage, Alaska
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to the Bond Reimbursement and Grant Review Committee members who reviewed the publication in its draft form and to those at the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Division of Facility Procurement Policy Division who were responsible for the predecessor to this document. Special thanks to Tim Mearig, AIA, Edwin Crittenden, FAIA and Michael Morgan, PMP who shepherded earlier versions of this document through to completion
This publication may not be reproduced for sale by individuals or entities other than the: State of Alaska Department of Education Juneau, Alaska
This publication was originally adapted from a November 1978 document published by the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Division of Facility Procurement Policy, entitled Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Guideline for Educational Facilities in Rural Alaska.
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 1997 Edition
Table of Contents
SECTION .......................................................................... Page INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 2 BASIC PROCEDURES ................................................... 3 Site Selection Elements Weighting Factors Applying Ranking Criteria Tabulating and Analyzing Results RANKING CRITERIA ELEMENTS ................................. 5 THE EVALUATION REPORT ........................................ 24 Introduction and Executive Summary Maps and Graphics Evaluation Matrix and Narratives APPENDICES APPENDIX A .................................................................. 25 Evaluation Matrix APPENDIX B .................................................................. 28 Sample Site Graphic Analysis APPENDIX C.................................................................. 29 Suburban School Layout
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
Introduction
Overview The perfect school site can be envisioned as generally level with some topographic interest, having complete utilities, stable, well drained soils, excellent road and pedestrian access, protection from excessive weather patterns, with ample space for school facilities, playground and sports fields. The site would be accessible to present and future populations and be free of any natural or environmental hazards. It would be removed from undesirable business, industry and traffic hazards but be convenient to important public facilities and recreational/outdoor learning areas. In most communities, however, the perfect site is elusive and difficult to find. School siting is also a serious public policy decision. Land availability, land use, public sentiment and other community issues can have dramatic influence on site selection. In any site selection process, local involvement and judgments regarding the relative significance of selection criteria are important. This Site Selection Criteria Handbook was developed with flexibility in mind, and can be used by school districts to perform a site selection analysis for any school facility by carefully selecting the appropriate criteria and weighting factors. Districts can use this guide for analysis of site opportunities for elementary schools, secondary schools, charter schools, alternative schools and special purpose facilities. Finally, site selection for school facilities has a direct and lasting impact on the resources of the State of Alaska. Both the economic resources and the natural resources of the state are affected by the construction and operation of public schools. Primarily in response to these factors, the state recognizes the need for careful and thorough evaluation of school sites. Authority The guidelines incorporated in this handbook have been developed to give assistance and direction to Alaska school districts and communities in determining the suitability of various building sites for educational facilities planning. They are based upon AS 14.11.013 and 14.11.100, which provides for department review of projects to ensure they are in the best interest of the state. This provision is further developed by regulation 4 AAC 31.025 which requires approval of educational facility sites under paragraph (a) and investigations by the appropriate local governing body for suitability in paragraph (d). This handbook establishes the basic considerations for an adequate site selection process. Other products of similar detail may be used to fill the requirements laid out in statute and regulation.
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
Basic Procedures
Site Selection Elements This handbook establishes a set of basic site selection elements and offers suggested evaluation criteria for rating the elements. Although the document does incorporate an internal weighting factor (it lists a few key ranking criteria elements which have high cost impacts in more than one sub-category) it does not prescribe the importance of most selection elements but rather, incorporates a weighting system whereby a district or community can assign a range of importance to each element. It is recognized that information for all the elements cannot always be determined nor are all elements applicable to every site. However, detail and rigor in addressing the elements is important for an effective evaluation. The selection elements are grouped into three major categories as follows:
1. Social and Land Use Factors 2. Construction Cost Factors a) Soils/Foundations b) Utilities c) Other 3. Operations and Maintenance Cost Factors
The site selection elements form the basis for an evaluation matrix which is shown in Appendix A and is available as a spreadsheet on the departments website. The first step in the process is to review the matrix elements for applicability to the project and sites being considered. Weighting Factors (WF) After identifying the site selection elements, the next step is to assign weighting factors to each element. Assignment of the weighting factors is the district/communitys opportunity to apply its values to the evaluation process so that the final scores for each site reflect issues involved at the local level. This is often accomplished through community surveys, public meetings and other forums for developing consensus among the parties affected by the school project. A suggested model for the district/community weighting factors is shown below:
Weighting Factors 1 = not very important 2 = somewhat important 3 = important 4 = very important 5 = essential
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
Basic Procedures
Applying Ranking Criteria Following the assignment of the weighting factors, each selection element is evaluated according to established criteria and ranked on the simple five point scale from 0 to 4. The detailed ranking criteria to be used, which differentiates as needed between rural and urban sites, is described following this section on Basic Procedures. The table below gives a suggested definition of each ranking score:
Criteria Ranking Scores 0 = unacceptable (least desirable/least cost effective) 1 = poor 2 = fair 3 = good 4 = excellent (most desirable/most cost effective)
Tabulating and Analyzing Results Using the Site Evaluation Matrix (Appendix A) enter the criteria ranking scores for each element. Compute the total score for each site by multiplying each criteria score by the weighting factor and sum them. An example of a portion of the Site Evaluation Matrix is shown below: Maintenance and Operating Cost Factors
Criteria
Site Drainage Flooding Site Erosion Sun Orientation Protection from Elements Proximity to Natural Hazards Alternative Energy Sources Air Inversions/Katabatic Winds TOTALS
WF
3 4 4 2 2 4 3 2 1 4 4 3 2 3 0 1 4
xWF
Sites
12 16 12 4 6 0 3 8 2 3 4 3 1 3 3 1 4
xWF
SAMPLE
61 68
9 16 12 2 6 12 3 8
3 3 2 3 1 2 4 2 4
xWF
9 8 12 2 4 16 6 8 65
xWF
The total scores for each site represent a detailed analysis; the highest score should indicate the most desirable site. If the district or community, based on factors not captured by the evaluation, desires to choose a site other than the site receiving the highest score, a narrative justification of this position will need to be developed for inclusion in the site selection report.
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
Total Net Square Footage Net to Gross Factor (10% for larger sites varying to 30% for small 10%-30% of net square sites to accommodate walkways and buffers between activity footage areas) Total Useable Area Required Number of Useable Acres Required (divide total useable area required by 43,560 SF/acre) See next page for evaluation criteria State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
Proximity to Population to be Served Criteria: Ideally, all students served by the school would be in convenient, safe walking distance to the site. In communities with roads, convenient vehicle/bus travel is also important. Evaluate this criterion using the anticipated population distribution when the school is at capacity (i.e. 5 year postoccupancy). Use the following standard, evaluating for both elements and using the lowest score: 50% of students served are within reasonable walking distance (i.e. mile or less) and, 90% of students served are within a 15 minute vehicle/bus ride Evaluation: Proximity of student population is 40% or more below standard Proximity of student population is within 20% of standard Proximity of student population is within 10% of standard Proximity of student population is equal to standard Proximity of student population is 10% or more above standard Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
Proximity to Important Existing Facilities Criteria: In some instances, a district/community can identify an existing facility (e.g. swimming pool, food service, etc.) which is shared between multiple schools and to which close proximity is essential or desired. If more than one facility is important, this criterion may have to be scored multiple times. In most cases the adjacency is important because it involves student transit. Use the following standard: students served are within a short walking distance to important existing facilities (i.e. 1/8 mile [660ft.] or less) Evaluation: Proximity of school is 40% or more below standard Proximity of school is within 20% of standard Proximity of school is within 10% of standard Proximity of school is equal to standard Proximity of school is 10% or more above standard Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
Safe Routes to School for Pedestrians and Bicycles Criteria: Safe walking routes enable students within a short distance of the school the option to walk or ride bicycles. Minor collectors and local roads with easy access to the school are best for student pedestrians and bicycles. Roads with a significant amount of traffic act as barriers to students, will require traffic control devices (signs, signals, crossing guards) and can result in conflicts when students make poor crossing decisions. Evaluate the local walking conditions and changes necessary to improve safety for students. Evaluation: No walking routes are available, nor can reasonable routes be constructed. Walking routes can be constructed, but significant pathway work is required. Traffic control devices could be extensive, requiring tunnels, bridges, or signalization. Walking routes can be constructed at-grade without major right-of-way or road work. Existing walking routes are suitable for 1/4 to 1/2 mile travel. A school zone beacon system may be required. Existing walking routes are suitable for 1/4 to 1/2 mile travel. No new traffic control devices are required. Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
10
Scores: 0
2 3 4
Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
11
Protection from Elements Criteria: The site should provide protection from prevailing winds which intensify cold temperatures, dust, driving rain and drifting snow. Topography, orientation and site vegetation relative to cold winter winds can be important both for indoor and outdoor educational activities. Sites with some type of wind protections are desirable over those exposed to harsh winds (this is especially critical in coastal areas). Evaluate this criteria based on natural features. Costs of compensating for inadequate protection should be covered in other criteria. Evaluation: Site is fully exposed to prevailing winds; no obstructions Site is mostly exposed to prevailing winds Site is partially protected from prevailing winds; some natural barriers Site is mostly protected from prevailing winds Site offers full protection from prevailing winds Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
12
Proximity to Natural Hazards Criteria: Ideally, the site would have no susceptibility to damage (facilities, utilities, etc.) from natural disasters. These would include the results of Force Majure such as earthquakes, avalanches/landslides, volcanic activity as well as health and safety hazards such as bluffs/steep cliffs, bodies of water and sewage/garbage disposal areas. Evaluate this criteria based on natural features and the historical occurrence of those hazards listed above. Costs of compensating for hazards should be covered in other criteria. Evaluation: Site in proximity to five or more hazards Site is in proximity to four or fewer hazards Site is in proximity to three or fewer hazards Site is in proximity to one hazard Site free of any potential damage/injury from natural hazards Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
13
Site Soils/Foundation Conditions Criteria: Ideal sites contain well graded, stable soils with high soil bearing pressure. Soil conditions should allow conventional, economical foundation systems which can meet or exceed a 50 year life expectancy with little maintenance. Soil conditions which can adversely affect construction include, discontinuous permafrost, silts and clays, substantial surface or sub-surface organic and high water contents (all susceptible to frost heave). Sites should be assessed for the quality of their soil based on known conditions or on-site investigations. Evaluation: Unstable soils throughout; highly specialized foundation required Mostly unstable soils; specialized foundation required Isolated area of the site have unstable soils, some specialized foundation likely Most areas of the site have stable soils; conventional foundation possible Stable soils; conventional foundation system possible Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
14
Availability of Sewage Utilities Criteria: Connection into an existing, reliable waste/sewer system with adequate capacity is preferred. Sites closest to the existing system would be rated highest. If a new sewage system is required for the site, then sites should be rated as to their potential to support/provide the system. For new systems, perking soils, space for lagoons and availability of effluent outfalls may be a factor. Evaluate this criteria based on known improvements and/or natural features as described above. Evaluation: No existing system; no known/potential waste handling area near site No existing sewer system; potential locations for sewer system near site No existing sewer system available; known location/method avail. on site Adequate, reliable sewer system is available adjacent to or near the site Adequate, reliable sewer system is available within the site Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
15
Availability of Fuel Storage/Distribution Criteria: Connection into an existing, reliable fuel storage/distribution system with adequate capacity is preferred. Sites closest to the existing system would be rated highest. If a new fuel system is required for the site, then sites should be rated as to their potential to support/provide the system. For new systems, proximity to delivery points, available land for tankage, etc. may be a factor. Evaluate this criteria based on known improvements and/or natural features as described above. Costs of providing fuel utility should be covered in other criteria. Evaluation: No existing system; known difficulties for fuel storage on site No existing fuel system; good potential for fuel system near site No existing fuel system available; known fuel system location on site Adequate, reliable fuel system is available adjacent to or near the site Fuel system is not required or is available on site Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
16
Ease of Transporting Construction Materials Criteria: Proximity to transportation routes which can support heavy equipment and loads can affect the usability of a site for construction. This criterion is not to measure the cost of getting construction materials to a community or geographic area but evaluates the local impact of transporting materials to the site. Sites closest to the transportation route will be most easily serviced. Evaluate based on the following: Evaluation: Site is inaccessible Transporting materials/equipment will be very difficult Transporting materials will be difficult Transporting will be fairly easy, routes will need upgrading Transporting of equipment/materials will be simple; on established routes Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
17
Site Cost Criteria: Land parcels should be available at an affordable cost. The most favorable situation is one in which the parcel is public land available at no cost to the district or available by donation from a private entity. Obviously, the cost of some parcels may be totally beyond the available funds. Evaluate as follows: Evaluation: Site is cost prohibitive Site is above fair market value but within reach Site is available at fair market value Site is available below fair market value Site is available at no cost or has a nominal administrative fee Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
18
Permafrost Stability Criteria: The best method in dealing with permafrost is to avoid it if possible. If the whole area is underlain with permafrost, then a site with well drained, non-frost-susceptible soils is preferred since there is less chance of encountering an ice wedge/lens, which, when melted will cause unstable soil conditions. Evaluate as follows: Evaluation: No soils testing; obvious signs of discontinuous permafrost Soils test silt and clay, known permafrost conditions Undetermined soil conditions; no obvious signs of permafrost Limited soils information; most of site free of permafrost Site soils tested, no permafrost present Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
19
Site Erosion Criteria: Sites which border on eroding river banks and eroding sea spits should be evaluated on how much and how often erosion takes place to determine if a facility would be endangered. Slopes which have been cleared of vegetation can also erode due to heavy rain. Evaluate this criteria based on natural features and the historical occurrence of those hazards listed above. Costs of compensating for hazards should be covered in other criteria. Evaluation: Known erosion potential n/a Moderate erosion potential; mostly during construction n/a No erosion potential; not near water or at toes of slopes Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
20
Existing Site Development Criteria: Vacant, undeveloped land is preferable; if developed or currently used, alternative sites must be available for existing uses. Evaluate based on the magnitude of existing uses requiring relocation and/or demolition and the simplicity of the action. Evaluation: Site has many existing uses; will all be problematic to relocate/demolish n/a Has 2000 square feet or less in existing uses; all relocatable/demo n/a Site has no existing uses Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
21
Noise Criteria: Incompatible noise such as from air traffic, vehicle traffic, industrial uses, etc. is detrimental to educational delivery. Evaluate this criteria based on actual or anticipated noise factors according to the following standard: sound decibel level is below 65db sustained and 75db peak Costs for mitigating these factors will be covered in other criteria. Evaluation: Sound level of site is 40% or worse than standard Sound level of site is within 20% of standard Sound level of site is within 10% of standard Sound level of site is equal to standard Sound level of site is 10% or more better than standard Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
22
Potential for Hazardous Materials Criteria: The site should be free of evidence of past use by industrial functions, unregulated storage of items containing hazardous materials or know disposals of hazards. A site assessment may be required. Evaluate as follows: Evaluation: 100% of site has known hazmat; significant impact to building Most of the site has known/probable hazmat; considerable impact likely Some of the site has known/probable hazmat; some impact likely Some of the site has known/probable hazmat; little or no impact likely Site has no known/potential hazmat issues Scores: 0 1 2 3 4
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
23
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
24
Criteria
Size of Site Proximity to Population to be Served Proximity to Future Expansion of Community Proximity to Important Existing Facilities Year-round Accessibility Site Topography Road Access Visibility, Safety of Driveways Driveway Conflicts and Internal Circulation Safe Routes to School for Pedestrians and Bicycles Roadway Capacity, Safety Needs Aesthetic Value Sun Orientation Protection from Elements Site Drainage Proximity to Natural Hazards Zoning/Land Use Proximity to Fire Response Equipment Flooding Existing Site Development Access to Outdoor Recreation/Learning Noise Wetlands Potential for Hazardous Materials TOTALS
WF
1
xWF
Sites
2
xWF
xWF
xWF
Note: Italicized Items are also evaluated in either Construction Cost Factors or Maintenance and Operating Cost Factors
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
25
Criteria
Soils/Foundation Conditions Permafrost Stability Availability of Water Utilities Availability of Sewer Utilities Availability of Electric Power Availability of Fuel Storage/Distribution Year-round Accessibility Driveway Conflicts and Internal Circulation Safe Routes to School for Pedestrians and Bicycles Roadway Capacity, Safety Needs Ease of Transporting Construction Materials Site Availability Site Cost Site Drainage Proximity to Natural Hazards Site Erosion Existing Site Development Wetlands Potential for Hazardous Materials TOTALS
WF
1
xWF
Sites
2
xWF
xWF
xWF
Note: Italicized Items are also evaluated in Maintenance and Operating Cost Factors
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
26
Criteria
Safe Routes to School for Pedestrians and Bicycles Site Drainage Flooding Site Erosion Sun Orientation Protection from Elements Proximity to Natural Hazards Alternative Energy Sources Air Inversions/Katabatic Winds TOTALS
WF
1
xWF
Sites
2
xWF
xWF
xWF
Criteria
1 Social and Land Use Factors Construction Cost Factors Maintenance and Operating Cost Factors GRAND TOTALS 2
Sites
3 4
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
27
SAMPLE
State of Alaska - Department of Education Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Handbook - 2011 Edition
28